Cardiac Arrest Increases Mortality and Coronary Complexity in STEMI Shock

The Lethal Intersection of Cardiogenic Shock and Cardiac Arrest

Cardiogenic shock remains one of the most formidable complications of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, carrying a high risk of mortality despite advances in primary percutaneous coronary intervention [1, 2]. While transradial access and mechanical circulatory support have improved outcomes in some high-risk subsets, the prognosis for patients with multi-vessel disease remains particularly guarded [3, 4, 5]. Clinical management is further complicated by metabolic derangements such as stress hyperglycemia and the frequent onset of arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation, both of which serve as independent predictors of poor short-term survival [6, 7]. Despite these known risks, there is a lack of clarity regarding how the specific timing and location of a concomitant cardiac arrest influence the anatomical complexity and long-term trajectory of these patients. A new study now offers fresh insights into the distinct clinical profiles and survival outcomes of patients facing this triple threat of infarction, shock, and arrest.

Distinct Phenotypes of In-Hospital and Out-of-Hospital Arrest

The researchers analyzed a cohort of 345 consecutive patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent immediate coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). These patients were admitted to two tertiary university hospitals between 2016 and 2025. The study population was categorized into three distinct groups to evaluate the impact of arrest timing: 150 patients (43.5%) had cardiogenic shock without cardiac arrest (STEMI-CS-no CA), 120 patients (34.8%) experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (STEMI-CS-OHCA), and 75 patients (21.7%) suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest (STEMI-CS-IHCA). Clinical profiles differed significantly between the two arrest cohorts, suggesting that the environment in which an arrest occurs may reflect different underlying pathophysiological states. Patients in the STEMI-CS-IHCA group were older than those in the STEMI-CS-OHCA group and presented with an initial shockable rhythm less frequently, at 36.0% compared to 61.0% in the out-of-hospital group (p=0.002). However, the in-hospital group benefited from immediate proximity to medical intervention, resulting in a shorter time to return of spontaneous circulation (the restoration of a stable heart rhythm and pulse), which averaged 10.0 minutes versus 19.6 minutes for the STEMI-CS-OHCA group (p<0.001). Despite the faster resuscitation times, the STEMI-CS-IHCA group exhibited the most severe hemodynamic and metabolic derangements. These patients had lower arterial pressure and a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (a measurement of the percentage of blood leaving the heart each time it contracts) compared to both the STEMI-CS-no CA and STEMI-CS-OHCA groups. Furthermore, the in-hospital arrest group showed greater evidence of systemic organ strain, characterized by a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (a statistical measure of kidney function used to determine how well the kidneys filter waste) and higher arterial lactate levels, which serve as a marker for profound tissue hypoxia and circulatory failure. For the clinician, these findings suggest that in-hospital arrest in the setting of STEMI may not simply be a matter of timing, but rather a marker of a more fragile patient with less physiological reserve.

Anatomical Complexity and Long-Term Survival Trajectories

The researchers observed that coronary complexity increased progressively across the three patient groups (p<0.001), as measured by the SYNTAX score, a grading system that evaluates the complexity of coronary artery disease based on specific lesion locations and characteristics such as calcification or bifurcation. In the STEMI-CS-no CA group, the mean SYNTAX score was 18.6. This anatomical burden rose to a mean SYNTAX score of 21.5 in the STEMI-CS-OHCA group and reached its highest level with a mean SYNTAX score of 27.2 in the STEMI-CS-IHCA group. These findings suggest that patients who suffer cardiac arrest in the setting of cardiogenic shock, particularly those with in-hospital events, present with significantly more challenging coronary anatomy for revascularization, which may complicate the technical success of percutaneous coronary intervention. Long-term outcomes remained poor across the entire cohort, but the occurrence of cardiac arrest significantly worsened the prognosis. At the 1-year follow-up, all-cause mortality was 67.3% in the STEMI-CS-no CA group. By comparison, the 1-year mortality was 78.3% in the STEMI-CS-OHCA group (p=0.004 compared to no CA) and 82.7% in the STEMI-CS-IHCA group (p<0.001 compared to no CA). Notably, while both arrest groups faced higher mortality than those with shock alone, there was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between the two cardiac arrest subgroups (p=0.555). This indicates that the physiological insult of the arrest itself, rather than its location, is the primary driver of the poor long-term survival trajectory. For the practicing clinician, these data underscore the extreme risk profile of patients presenting with the combination of STEMI, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest. The high anatomical complexity and the fact that mortality exceeds 80% at one year for in-hospital arrest patients necessitate both aggressive clinical management and early, realistic prognostic discussions with families. The progressive increase in SYNTAX scores suggests that these patients may require more complex percutaneous interventions, yet the high mortality rates across both arrest groups highlight the persistent challenge of improving survival in this critically ill population.

References

1. Yan F, Zhang Y, Pan Y, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention for adult patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. 2023. doi:10.4103/jrms.jrms_781_21

2. Zhang M, Zhao Z, Liu Y, et al. Transradial Access vs. Transfemoral Access for Primary PCI in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Findings from a National, Multicenter Registry and Meta-Analysis.. Korean circulation journal. 2026. doi:10.4070/kcj.2025.0251

3. Rai D, Tahir MW, Bandyopadhyay D, et al. Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials for Multivessel PCI Versus Culprit Artery Only PCI in STEMI Without Cardiogenic Shock.. Current problems in cardiology. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2020.100646

4. Ahsan MJ, Ahmad S, Latif A, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes. 2022. doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcac018

5. Rio-Pertuz GD, Benjanuwattra J, Juarez M, Mekraksakit P, Argueta-Sosa E, Ansari MM. Efficacy of Mechanical Circulatory Support Used Before Versus After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock From ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2022.05.002

6. Schmitt J, Duray GZ, Gersh BJ, Hohnloser SH. Atrial fibrillation in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review of the incidence, clinical features and prognostic implications. European Heart Journal. 2008. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn579

7. Alkatiri AH, Qalby N, Mappangara I, et al. Stress hyperglycemia and poor outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2024. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2024.1303685